Ars takes an in-depth look at RIM's entry into the tablet market, the PlayBook …

RIM, the venerable business smartphone vendor, has entered the tablet market with the official launch of its BlackBerry PlayBook. The seven-inch slate ships with a new operating system that pairs the QNX kernel with a custom user interface. The PlayBook is designed as a companion device for a tethered BlackBerry handset, which it relies upon for messaging and other productivity applications.

The PlayBook hardware is impressive and the user interface is compelling, but the product has some major limitations that will significantly impair its mainstream appeal. Rough edges aside, the PlayBook is still extremely significant because it offers a first look at the future of RIM's platform—the company has already said that its QNX-based tablet operating system will serve as the basis for future versions of the BlackBerry smartphone operating system.

During a week of intensive testing, we put the PlayBook through its paces. In this review, we will look closely at how the device holds up during real-world usage scenarios and what implications the new software platform could hold for RIM's future.

Hardware

The PlayBook's hardware specs are comparable to its chief rivals. It is powered by a TI OMAP 4430 SoC with a dual-core 1GHz ARM Cortex A9 CPU and a PowerVR SGX540 GPU. It has 1GB of RAM and 16GB of internal storage capacity.

Unlike the Xoom and the iPad, the PlayBook has a seven-inch display. RIM decided to aim for a more portable form factor, with dimensions that are very similar to the original Galaxy Tab. The PlayBook is slightly slimmer than the Tab, however, and has less rounded corners. What sets the PlayBook apart is that its screen is significantly better than other medium-sized tablets—it operates at a resolution of 1024x600, which is nearly comparable to that of the iPad.

The 16:9 display is beautiful and very well-suited for watching video content. Fortunately, RIM has also seen fit to bless the PlayBook with good audio. Unlike most of the other tablets that we have tested, the PlayBook has front-positioned speakers on both the left and right bezels. You get a stereo sound experience rather than the one-sided audio that we have complained about on competing devices.

In all, the PlayBook hardware makes it pretty compelling as a mobile theater. The device's size and screen ratio is also a really good fit for reading e-books when it is held in portrait orientation. Due to the high resolution, the text is extremely clear and readable.

There are two cameras on the PlayBook: a front-facing 3MP camera and a rear-facing 5MP camera. Unlike the Xoom, the PlayBook doesn't have an LED flash for snapping photos in low lighting. It has the usual assortment of sensors, including a GPS, accelerometer, six-axis gyroscope, and magnetic compass.

Buttons and ports

There are no buttons on the face of the PlayBook, but there are several on the top edge. A very tiny power button is recessed into the frame in a manner that makes it difficult to hit unless you use a fingernail—an annoyance that is largely mitigated by the gesture system, as we will explain later in the article. There are also buttons for controlling volume and media playback. The buttons to raise and lower the volume extrude angularly like a rocker, even though they are separate buttons. Between them is a pause/play button that will toggle music. At the far right of the top edge is a standard headphone jack.

The bottom edge of the device has a microUSB port for charging the device or connecting it to a computer, and a microHDMI port that makes it possible to plug the PlayBook into a television or projector and mirror the contents of the screen. Next to those two, there is a dock connector—a shallow port with metal pins. Disappointingly, RIM opted not to include a microSD card slot, so there is no removable storage functionality.

RIM's official spec sheet doesn't specify the PlayBook's expected battery life, but the company promised prior to the release that it would be comparable to that of the iPad. During actual usage, with tethering enabled, we got roughly eight hours of life from the PlayBook's 5300 mAh battery.

I just don't know that there's room for another closed ecosystem in this space. I've been shorting the hell out of RIM (and making a lot of money doing it) because I really believe they're a doomed company. They're a classic example of a company who did well in their niche because they provided an adequate product at a time when nobody else felt it was worth playing, but now that the market is mainstream they just can't compete with the superior offerings.

iOS and Android left BlackBerry in the dust years ago, and try as they might, RIM just doesn't have the resources to compete with Apple, Google and Microsoft (not to mention HP.) RIM is in mostly the same position as Palm and Sun were a few years back; except there's not really a big company sitting on the sidelines with a wad of cash and an itch to get into mobile anymore.

I find it odd that so many "reviews" of the PlayBook aren't really reviews as much as they're almost apologetic hopeful longings that it will eventually be a good product. It seems to me that you ought to review the product -- as shipping -- instead of doing the equivalent of RIM's PR promising that it'll get better. You don't really know whether it will get better. A review should stick to what's actually shipping right now, not what the reviewer hopes will be better later, IMO.

Good fair review, it has great hardware, a great OS, great user interface, but needs big name apps and a native email app to attract the mainstream. I imagine they are coming soon (maybe on Monday at RIM's conference?). As of now it's solid for the geek crowd and BB users, but not ready for mainstream. I love what mine does now, but knowing it's a luxury item not a necessity I can afford to wait until it's more polished.

How they implement the ability to run Android apps could make or break it, unless they suddenly get a flood of the big name apps...surprised the future ability to run Android and Blackberry apps wasn't mentioned, certainly was an incentive for me to pick one up.

I just don't know that there's room for another closed ecosystem in this space. I've been shorting the hell out of RIM (and making a lot of money doing it) because I really believe they're a doomed company. They're a classic example of a company who did well in their niche because they provided an adequate product at a time when nobody else felt it was worth playing, but now that the market is mainstream they just can't compete with the superior offerings.

iOS and Android left BlackBerry in the dust years ago, and try as they might, RIM just doesn't have the resources to compete with Apple, Google and Microsoft (not to mention HP.) RIM is in mostly the same position as Palm and Sun were a few years back; except there's not really a big company sitting on the sidelines with a wad of cash and an itch to get into mobile anymore.

I just find it funny that they spent so much time toward the end of last year talking smack about the iPad and how the Playbook will be so much better, particularly in performance with its dual core processor. Of course all that stopped when the iPad 2 launched. And then they shipped this. A tablet with potential that is unfinished despite launching after its original competitor has already been refreshed. If they aren't in a position to ship, they should be careful how they set expectations.

I think RIM is way too overconfident in their position thinking they still have the corporate market sowed up and Blackberry users will remain loyal and automatically buy the Playbook when it launches because its from RIM, the makers of the Blackberry. Hence, a tablet that needs a Blackberry to access some pretty important/basic features. But, I believe recent studies showed that many iPad owners in fact don't own an iPhone, but other smartphones like Blackberrys so RIM really needs to expand their user base rather than just trying to tap their existing, shrinking marketshare.

Why is it acceptable for companies to released unfinished products. Why do reviewers continually gloss over the fact that these devices are just not thought through, not ready for market, and not production ready?

And most seriously of all, why do people keep trusting the manufacturers?

The XOOM still doesn't have half the things motorola promised it would have at launch (SD card, 4G, flash still doesn't work properly…)

Time and again in this review, you say things like

Quote:

I wasn't able to get it working properly

or

Quote:

… managable, but not particularly pleasant

and

Quote:

I typically have to restart the browser…

and of course

Quote:

it simply doesn't function properly out of the box

You can pull quotes like these from every single page.

Think back to high school or college. If you turned in a paper or project where literally every aspect had comments like this, what would be the grade you'd expect? It's tough to argue such work would merit anything besides an "incomplete" or "failing" grade.

These products aren't ready for market. Grading them as if they're beta hardware is a joke. Fail them outright - be honest with the review. Or don't review them until they're finished. Pretending this stuff is going to be fixed and giving the manufacturer credit for hypothetical future hardware and software updates is intellectually dishonest at best.

Look at Samsung's track record with updates if you have any doubt that manufacturers might not release software fixes for hardware after it's released.

"Maybe RIM should concentrate on making it a solid business device and worry about the consumer side later."

The problem is they did make a very solid device for their current customers running BB server software, who issue BB phones to their employees. It's great if you are in that ecosystem, just hand it out and go with no security worries. Where it needs more apps and polishing is on the consumer side.

The review six months from now will probably be totally different, as it will have a lot of the big name apps, and theoretically a lot Android and BB apps, to go with the cool hardware and OS. I doubt Apple will have a new iPad by then so they should be in good shape, Android will take just as long to get its act together, they're on Version 1.0 for tablets as well.

"Maybe RIM should concentrate on making it a solid business device and worry about the consumer side later."

The problem is they did make a very solid device for their current customers running BB server software, who issue BB phones to their employees. It's great if you are in that ecosystem, just hand it out and go with no security worries. Where it needs more apps and polishing is on the consumer side.

The review six months from now will probably be totally different, as it will have a lot of the big name apps, and theoretically a lot Android and BB apps, to go with the cool hardware and OS. I doubt Apple will have a new iPad by then so they should be in good shape, Android will take just as long to get its act together, they're on Version 1.0 for tablets as well.

Apple won't likely have a new iPad out in 6 months, but they will have iOS 5, which given the supposed delay, looks to be a major update. If they enable more flexible multitasking for example, this will definitely improve the iPad 2 experience.

It's definitely a disturbing trend in software these last few years, this willingness to ship clearly unfinished products.

As to the hardware, it seems pretty shiny, but I'm still in that group who just can't find a good enough use for a tablet given the cost, given that I already have a laptop and smartphone.

Ultimately, I'm perfectly happy reading ebooks on my iP4, watching video on it or my laptop depending on the situation. Hell, my laptop sees less and less use all the time given that my phone effectively does everything.

But, I can't see trading my phone for a tablet, as the pocket size form factor wins. I *always* have my phone with me, while I'd have to pack around a bag for a tablet.

That said, tablets are cool, and I'm sure they're great for some people. Me, I'd sooner see Netbooks evolve some.

...the fact that Flash behaves worse on the PlayBook than on an Android phone is genuinely surprising.

Surprising to who?

Since when has Adobe ever been honest with their promotion of mobile Flash?

It makes me angry how they swore up and down that they could produce a solid version of Flash for the original iPhone four years ago. People were up in arms that Apple was blocking Flash at the time, saying that it was just Apple being anti-competitive. And yet here we are, four years and at least four generations of ARM hardware later, and Adobe still can't produce a credible mobile Flash experience even when a major OEM is bending over backwards to help make it happen?

The only reason I don't want Flash to die is so that ads will keep being produced in a way that is easily identified and blocked.

Look at Samsung's track record with updates if you have any doubt that manufacturers might not release software fixes for hardware after it's released.

I don't think Samsung is a fair comparison to RIM in this case. Samsung seems to approach mobile as a CE market, where it is very common to drop a palette of devices off at some distributor's loading dock and then forget about them evermore.

RIM is betting the company on this OS if not this exact device and they clearly see it as being a computer rather than a piece of consumer electronics. They will certainly make every effort to polish and complete the software stack, even if they never manage to get a solid Flash browser plugin out of Adobe.

Why is it acceptable for companies to released unfinished products. Why do reviewers continually gloss over the fact that these devices are just not thought through, not ready for market, and not production ready?

And most seriously of all, why do people keep trusting the manufacturers?

The XOOM still doesn't have half the things motorola promised it would have at launch (SD card, 4G, flash still doesn't work properly…)

Time and again in this review, you say things like

Quote:

I wasn't able to get it working properly

or

Quote:

… managable, but not particularly pleasant

and

Quote:

I typically have to restart the browser…

and of course

Quote:

it simply doesn't function properly out of the box

You can pull quotes like these from every single page.

Think back to high school or college. If you turned in a paper or project where literally every aspect had comments like this, what would be the grade you'd expect? It's tough to argue such work would merit anything besides an "incomplete" or "failing" grade.

These products aren't ready for market. Grading them as if they're beta hardware is a joke. Fail them outright - be honest with the review. Or don't review them until they're finished. Pretending this stuff is going to be fixed and giving the manufacturer credit for hypothetical future hardware and software updates is intellectually dishonest at best.

Look at Samsung's track record with updates if you have any doubt that manufacturers might not release software fixes for hardware after it's released.

Couldn't agree more. If this were like an E3 product preview of something that's coming out a year from now I could excuse some of the shortcomings, but this is a SHIPPING product. Why cut it any slack at all?

And also, with Adobe's total failure to bring Flash to mobile platforms in any workable way. Time and again I've seen review after review saying that it's still buggy, slow and unworkable. The only people I've seen saying it's fine is anecdotal posts from users saying "oh, works great for me! no problems here, don't know what you're talking about" yet they cannot produce one shred of proof other than their word.

I find it odd that so many "reviews" of the PlayBook aren't really reviews as much as they're almost apologetic hopeful longings that it will eventually be a good product. It seems to me that you ought to review the product -- as shipping -- instead of doing the equivalent of RIM's PR promising that it'll get better. You don't really know whether it will get better. A review should stick to what's actually shipping right now, not what the reviewer hopes will be better later, IMO.

Good fair review, it has great hardware, a great OS, great user interface, but needs big name apps and a native email app to attract the mainstream. I imagine they are coming soon (maybe on Monday at RIM's conference?). As of now it's solid for the geek crowd and BB users, but not ready for mainstream. I love what mine does now, but knowing it's a luxury item not a necessity I can afford to wait until it's more polished.

Well, whose fucking stupid idea was it to tie e-mail functionality to a BlackBerry? That will go down in the annals of tech history as a bonehead move; there's no way to sugar coat it when there are a dozen other products on the market that are at least as good as the PlayBook in every other way AND have a native e-mail client. And I gotta say, at least 50% of what I use my iPad for is e-mail and calendaring while sitting on the couch.

So the hardware side is nice and it has a good browser, but everything else is an embarrassment. If a company like Apple or MS sold a product like this I think the reviews would be excruciating. To think of the breathless wall-to-wall coverage that greets even the most obscure bugs or defects of Apple products...

In theory, having flash and flex and all these tools would allow lots of developers to quickly port and create new apps. In reality, you get a buggy flash player, schizophrenic app user interface, and 1000 metric converters...

They should have stuck to one strategy instead of multiple.Would have saved them precious resources, and time as well.

Once again, a tablet manufacturer does a decent job on hardware/OS, but only pays lip-service to applications that are available at launch. Look at Apple: at each iPad launch, they showcase one or two killer apps - iWork for the original iPad; Garageband and iMovie for the iPad 2. These alone are meant to be compelling reasons why someone should buy the device.

I'll agree that the Playbook looks promising, but all the major non-iPad tablets could be good (e.g., Galaxy Tab, Xoom). On the other hand, the iPad is good, if not perfect -- *cough* notifications *cough*.

As for the Playbook's multi-tasking approach, I like it. However, I would prefer if the multi-tasking options were on a per-app basis (i.e., you could allow specific apps to always run in the background, but not others).

RIM boardroom April 4th 2010:Chairman: Have you guys looked at this thing Apple has put out? Ha Ha, nobody will ever want this.

RIM boardroom June 4th 2010:Chairman: Where are we on developing a tablet? The competition is running us over, make this happen now!

RIM boardroom March 2nd 2011:Chairman: Apple is releasing their 2gen device in two weeks, where are we? We have to beat them to market.CEO: I'm givin' her all she's got guv'nor! But she ain't finished.

I like Ars, but this is not a review, it's mostly a wishlist. Maybe it was paid by RIM.

Yeah a review that mentions all the flaws as observed but gives ANY indication that a competitive tablet product either has potential or heaven forbid does SOME things better than the competition must be written by a shill.

My question if the reviewer reads this is, you suggest the playbook is in dire need of video apps for streaming services, are these unavailable through the browser which you suggest is excellent as tablet browsers go?

I haven't used a PB so I can't comment on the overall validity but the review appears to be a really good attempt to check out where the PB is at in comparison to competition and seems to be analytical and critical where necessary.

I'm also glad that the review took the approach he has with a new product and unlike many others didn't dive in with a gut reaction review unlike many of the commentators and posters on the original first impressions thread!

Once again, a tablet manufacturer does a decent job on hardware/OS, but only pays lip-service to applications that are available at launch. Look at Apple: at each iPad launch, they showcase one or two killer apps - iWork for the original iPad; Garageband and iMovie for the iPad 2. These alone are meant to be compelling reasons why someone should buy the device.

I'll agree that the Playbook looks promising, but all the major non-iPad tablets could be good (e.g., Galaxy Tab, Xoom). On the other hand, the iPad is good, if not perfect -- *cough* notifications *cough*.

As for the Playbook's multi-tasking approach, I like it. However, I would prefer if the multi-tasking options were on a per-app basis (i.e., you could allow specific apps to always run in the background, but not others).

In what way do you see iWork a killer app in comparison to the document to go software?

Once again, a tablet manufacturer does a decent job on hardware/OS, but only pays lip-service to applications that are available at launch. Look at Apple: at each iPad launch, they showcase one or two killer apps - iWork for the original iPad; Garageband and iMovie for the iPad 2. These alone are meant to be compelling reasons why someone should buy the device.

In what way do you see iWork a killer app in comparison to the document to go software?

Good question. To be honest, I have no idea what the DocumentToGo software is like, nor have I used iWork on an iPad. I based my comment on the fact that DTG was given no more than a paragraph in an 11 page review that otherwise describes the bundled apps as passable. This may be because it's not an Apple product; it may be because office software is seen as standard software akin to an e-mail client these days; or it may even be that a proper review of DTG is in the works.

I just got the feeling that DTG wasn't a feature that RIM were heavily pushing as a reason to buy the Playbook. They seem more concerned with Flash, multitasking, and the Bridge software. Given that they are initially trying to target business users, it seems odd that DTG is not more heavily promoted by RIM.

As for iWork, one of the major drawbacks that was associated with tablets (of the iPad style) in the beginning was that they were "consumption" devices. As such, Apple sought to address this directly by producing and then promoting iWork. And as with Garageband, their goal was to produce a top-class application that was significantly better than what anyone else had thought of or tried to do (e.g., things like using the accelerometer in Garageband to determine how hard you hit a piano key).

If you (or anyone else) has actual experience of iWork and DocumentsToGo, I would be interested in hearing how they compare. Maybe Ars can do a comparison between them, as well as with the major office apps on Android....?

it operates at a resolution of 1024x600, which is nearly comparable to that of the iPad.

/sigh

A 7" screen at 1024x600 has a resolution of 169dpi, which is the same as the Nook Color and significantly higher than the iPad's 132dpi. For a device in which reading text will be a major application, dpi is what counts.

it operates at a resolution of 1024x600, which is nearly comparable to that of the iPad.

/sigh

A 7" screen at 1024x600 has a resolution of 169dpi, which is the same as the Nook Color and significantly higher than the iPad's 132dpi. For a device in which reading text will be a major application, dpi is what counts.

If you have average eyes then a ten inch screen will be easier to read. if you are complaining about the IPad screen it probably means you haven't seen one.

Anyway, 200 by 200 was good enough for the palm 3. Anything more is just a bonus.

I just don't know that there's room for another closed ecosystem in this space. I've been shorting the hell out of RIM (and making a lot of money doing it) because I really believe they're a doomed company. They're a classic example of a company who did well in their niche because they provided an adequate product at a time when nobody else felt it was worth playing, but now that the market is mainstream they just can't compete with the superior offerings.

iOS and Android left BlackBerry in the dust years ago, and try as they might, RIM just doesn't have the resources to compete with Apple, Google and Microsoft (not to mention HP.) RIM is in mostly the same position as Palm and Sun were a few years back; except there's not really a big company sitting on the sidelines with a wad of cash and an itch to get into mobile anymore.

Honeycomb isn't exactly finished either and Flash performance on Android tablets is laughable, unless you just want to watch video. RIMM is not alone with unfinished overpriced mini-tablets.